Talk:Federal Elections, First 2017
Keep in mind, we've got lots of small parties like RTP who also compete. --OuWTB 14:41, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Well look at it this way. If in the Netherlands we have 28 parties competing with a population of 17,000,000 then maybe in Lovia we do only have 8 parties running. And consider that you will provide seats to the RTP from your seats then it becomes clear that what we have in Lovia are electoral alliances to run under single party lists. Just like the KUN, SNP and PNT are running with the CNP under one list, the RTP and other parties will run with the CCPL under one list. Because these minor parties will only receive one or two seats they don't run alone and instead group with larger like-minded parties to ensure their seats. KunarianTALK 14:59, March 16, 2017 (UTC) That makes no sense though. Parties like RTP and OSB are miles apart; they will never run under one list. --OuWTB 15:08, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :Sure you can afford your seats to other parties. But for the sake of making the article add up we might only want to mention that minor parties ran if you don't wish to do it that specific way. As no one is actually running for the RTP or OSB. KunarianTALK 15:36, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::You a nuisance though :o --OuWTB 15:43, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::I try :O KunarianTALK 16:31, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::::Actually, wasn't there supposed to be a minimum vote threshold that would prevent such small parties from getting into Congress unless they ran under a larger list? 77topaz (talk) 19:30, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::::(edc) Just to note, your proposal wouldn't have been compatible with my previous NCO choices, at least, unless one wanted to argue that CCPL, Porcines and 7 were all elected on a single OOC list with an independent at the top. The OOC electoral process has never been specified, though it's presumed that it's some kind of list system; like many things the OOC/IC barrier has been left blurred, which I don't think is a problem. --Semyon 19:38, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::::::No, I mean, didn't Kunarian's recent amendments introduce such a threshold? 77topaz (talk) 19:40, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I'm not sure, to be honest. The (edc) means edit 'conflict', which is to indicate I wrote the comment (in reply to Kun) before reading yours. --Semyon 19:46, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Yeah, same goes for the left. And btw, Justin ain't leading the party for the election. [[User:Horton11|'HORTON11']] 15:16, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :Place holders currently. Feel free to edit. KunarianTALK 15:36, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Mark Schlitz and CPL.nm are being forgotten in the polling, as they are becoming largely popular. He should be elected the Prime Minister at this point. I like toenails. 19:16, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :Go and vote on the forum if you want to demonstrate he's popular. KunarianTALK 19:49, March 16, 2017 (UTC) I don't think you understand what the word "popular" means. :P 77topaz (talk) 19:28, March 16, 2017 (UTC) I would like to retroactively eject Bingbang from CPL.nm, his platforms don't fit with it. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:54, March 16, 2017 (UTC) On second thought let's see if we can make it worth with him :3 —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:37, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Wait, so, what is the benefit to ever having more than one person on a party list if you can only vote once for the party list. I should eject him then and he can make the "Second Communist Party of Lovia (neo-marxist)" or something. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:01, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :Well the larger the party the more votes it has at the end and the more chance of coming first, second or third and getting juicy bonus seats. KunarianTALK 21:05, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Plus you can't eject him in the middle of the election (well you can but he'll still get seats from your list because he ran under it and the voting is occurring on it). KunarianTALK 21:06, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::I can change my list to being another list then. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:17, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::::Sure :D KunarianTALK 21:18, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::::I think, because of the poor quality of Bingbang's edits and the clearly ridiculous platform he tried to introduce for CPL.nm, TM's candidacy should take precedence and Bingbang should have to change lists instead. 77topaz (talk) 21:21, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Perhaps. Bingbang did get his candidacy in however. I would want to be fair, depends how much this matters to Time I think. KunarianTALK 21:26, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Two CPL.nm lists doesn't really seem like a good solution to me. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:23, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :I agree, three would be way better. :P --Semyon 21:24, March 16, 2017 (UTC) ::It seems borderline illegal. :P One of the two lists should probably have a more different name. 77topaz (talk) 21:30, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :::They should be from clearly different parties that are actually different in ideas as well not just CPL.nm one. KunarianTALK 21:39, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Okay, I just saw Ben added a third CPL.nm list. I'm going to have to agree with Kunarian that that's too much. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:32, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :Yeah none of them should be allowed to stand. KunarianTALK 21:39, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Day by day turnout I don't think it makes sense to connect when everyone votes OOC to when people voted IC - it would be weird for actual people of a certain party to only vote on a few select days within the voting period corresponding to the OOC users voting. 77topaz (talk) 10:43, March 17, 2017 (UTC) :I think it's fine. I'm fight an election IRL right now and we're planning for the election day. There are times of day when certain people vote and when others won't. The linking of OOC votes to IC concerning turnout is just a bit of fun really. And it makes the whole thing more interesting. KunarianTALK 11:01, March 17, 2017 (UTC) ::I see. 77topaz (talk) 11:04, March 17, 2017 (UTC) :::CCPL and RTP voters won't turn up on Sundays though, cuz that's rest day in the Church :o --OuWTB 11:11, March 17, 2017 (UTC) ::::I suppose the wiki is going to keep a record. MyOwnBadSelf (talk) 22:59, March 17, 2017 (UTC) Percentage @MOBS: Percentage refers to the percentage of votes the party received from an in-universe point of view; those percentages wouldn't exactly be the same as the number of seats won. 77topaz (talk) 20:27, May 21, 2017 (UTC) :'Kay. Is that from the 'election statistics' bar? MyOwnBadSelf (talk) 22:57, May 21, 2017 (UTC) ::"Election statistics bar"? Do you mean those horizontal bar graphs at the bottom of the page? 77topaz (talk) 11:29, May 22, 2017 (UTC) :::Yes. MyOwnBadSelf (talk) 23:09, May 22, 2017 (UTC) Are we ever going to do anything with this again? We never even formally established a new government. 77topaz (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2017 (UTC) I suggest voiding this and all the changes to the constitution, and then deciding if we want to hold new elections this winter or not under the original system. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:32, August 29, 2017 (UTC)